Bible · Christianity · evolution · God · humanity · philosophy · religion · science

Evolutionists backtrack on “bipedal” ape

Every once in a while comes a story that highlights the weaknesses of evolutionists and their theories. Time and time again, they rush to judgment about fossils they find and quickly create a backstory, sometimes accompanied by an artist’s rendering, to promote the idea of macroevolution. Often these fairy tale stories are created to make us believe humans & monkeys have the same ancestor.ape to human evolution

Then years later, they have to rescind their earlier findings because they didn’t take the time to research the details of a fossil like they should have. This scenario happened again recently when a team of evolutionary scientists took a more thorough look at the fossilized ape known as Oreopithecus, discovered in Italy. Anthropologists at the University of Texas at Austin examined the remains of this ape they estimate to be 7 to 9 million years old (this estimated age is also a fallacy).

They examined the spinal anatomy of Oreopithecus and compared it to the anatomy of humans and known human ancestors. After examination, they discovered that the fossilized ape did not have the necessary intricate network of bones in its lower back to sustain bipedal motion, also known as habitually walking on two legs like humans. Oreopithecus, based on its anatomy, could only walk like other apes with brief moments of bipedal motion.

Lo and behold, Oreopithecus was not the transitional fossil they claimed it was. It was just another species of ape like the ones we have today. Their findings prove the Bible correct. God created creatures to only breed their own kind. Apes have always been apes, just like fish have always been fish and humans have always been humans. Still, no transitional fossils whatsoever have been found to show any macroevolution (i.e. that one family of creatures can evolve into a totally different family of creatures).

But creationists have always disputed the assumptions made by evolutionists that Oreopithecus was completely bipedal. See this article from 2005 which disputes the idea of bipedalism in apes. However, you’ll never hear evolutionists admit this. And their error won’t be published much since it makes them look bad.

Source: University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Extinct Ancient Ape Did Not Walk Like a Human, Study Shows. Thursday, July 25, 2013.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Evolutionists backtrack on “bipedal” ape

  1. The absence of transitional fossils and missing links is a pretty weak argument against evolution. Considering the sheer amount of life that’s ever existed in the history of our planet, it seems pretty ridiculous to expect that if evolution was true, somehow one of each and every species that had EVER lived would be fossilized. Of course the fossil record is incomplete; it takes a very unique set of circumstances to create a fossil in the first place. That doesn’t mean that out transitional ancestors never existed, but rather that the circumstances of their deaths were rather unremarkable, i.e. they didn’t all somehow manage to throw themselves into tar pit, get flash frozen in the Alps, etc.

    Like

    1. ryan,

      The fossil record is incomplete, I’ll give you that. However, thousands of fossils have been discovered in the various strata that exist around the globe. All that is needed is ONE, just ONE transitional fossil to show that some living creature among the thousands that have ever inhabited the earth evolved from one family of creatures to a totally different one. Fossils are being discovered practically every day since the 1800s. There should have been one found by now given the variety and massive quantity of fossils already discovered. To realize not even one has been found is basically saying that evolutionists get a pass on not being able to give concrete evidence of their theories and hypotheses, yet the Bible, which has solid, concrete proof of its statements that tie-in to science to back its claims, is automatically dismissed. Why? Because it includes the obvious fact that an Intelligent Being (God) with power beyond all the forces in the universe created the time, matter, and space that make up the universe.

      The reality is that it takes blind faith to drink the Kool-Aid that the evolutionists are serving the unquestioning masses.

      Like

      1. ryan,

        Be honest. You really aren’t interested in any proof that the Bible is true. It would be too inconvenient for your purposes to ever admit evolution is wrong & the Bible is for real. But just to show you I’m willing to share it even though you’ll refuse to accept it, here’s the proof:

        101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge in the Bible

        proof of God’s existence in the cosmos pt. 1

        proof of God’s existence in the cosmos pt. 2

        proof of God’s existence in the cosmos pt. 3

        There’s also solid historical and spiritual proof of the Bible’s accuracy, but I won’t go into that right now.

        Like

      2. I guess my ultimate response is that evolution doesn’t occur in distinct stages. Organisms don’t go from phase one, to phase two, to phase three, etc. Evolution is an incredibly slow process of tiny, incremental changes. In that sense, every creature is a “transitional” one, since it’s slightly different from the one that preceded it and slightly different than the one that will come after it.

        Like

      3. You’re grasping at straws to try to make evolution fit. What you’re expressing is a blind leap of faith. There are many examples in nature that show irreducible complexity where systems within and on an organism are co-dependent on other parts or other systems to function in order for the organism to live and thrive. Many of those systems don’t have time to wait on the “tiny, incremental changes” you’re talking about. And they don’t have the foreknowledge of their genetics to know what is needed for a transition. The knowledge for a needed change, e.g. “natural selection”, to function is already encoded in their genes. In order for that to be possible, a Supreme Being existing outside of themselves and more powerful, and more knowledgeable than the organism would have to have placed all the necessary parts and systems and genetic coding in and on the organism in one fell swoop.

        But in the midst of the irreducible complexity and genetic coding, there is no possible way for a creature in one family of organisms to become a creature in another family of organisms (macroevolution). The changes you’re talking about are “natural selection” or microevolution, where an organism already has the information built within itself to have offspring with some differences but the offspring remains in the same family of creatures generation after generation. Microevolution does not prove your macroevolution. They’re totally different operations.

        Here are two scientific examples of what I mean:

        Forget what you heard, dinosaurs didn’t become birds

        The eyes don’t lie, or, how the eyes disprove evolution

        Like

      4. For every “scientific point” that you post, I could post a counterpoint that you’ll never believe because it doesn’t mesh with the existence of an unseen, unknowable supreme creator. I don’t think that either of us is ever going to dissuade the other. Thank you for the exchange, best of luck in the future.

        Like

      5. Yep, that’s what I knew you would say. But you, like every other human that has ever walked the earth, inherently know God exists. He makes it plain throughout creation and in our very being. You and the many like you are content to deceive yourselves because, quite plainly, you enjoy your sin and don’t want the knowable and personable God of the Bible telling you to give up your sins and misconceptions.

        Like

      6. Not every genetic mutation is of obvious consequence. Perhaps a mutation isn’t passed on because the individual is killed before they can pass it on. DNA also has a limited ability to correct itself, so perhaps a mutation is “fixed” by the organism before it’s expressed. Perhaps the change is so slight there there’s really no obvious change in the appearance of the organism. For example, there are a lot of blood disorders that would change my skeleton if it were found by future scientists. But perhaps over the span of hundreds of thousands or millions of years these small changes accumulate, results in an organism that has a large amount of small changes. That’s what evolution is arguing.

        Like

      7. ryan,

        You’re trying to make the leap that natural selection, or microevolution, proves macroevolution. Genetic mutations are dependent on what is already encoded in an organism’s DNA. Organisms don’t absorb genetic information from outside themselves in nature to make mutations. Macroevolution requires a creature to, of its own natural power, acquire foreign genetic info for it to transform itself into another family of creature. This transition has never, and will never, be proven because it has never occurred, as the fossil record has shown. Microevolution doesn’t prove macroevolution. Never has. Never will.

        Like

  2. “The fossil record is incomplete, I’ll give you that. However, thousands of fossils have been discovered in the various strata that exist around the globe. All that is needed is ONE, just ONE transitional fossil to show that some living creature among the thousands that have ever inhabited the earth evolved from one family of creatures to a totally different one.”

    There is no such thing as a totally different family of creatures, all living things on earth share some traits in common with everything else (one of the reasons common ancestry is so well accepted by biologists). If you want a transitional form that has the characteristics of more than one group there are thousands. Darwin predicted that if birds descended from some other group we would find early extinct birds with separate digits in their wings (something that does not exist in nature) – two years after he made the prediction the first archeopteryx was discovered, a dinosaur with feathered wings and five digits with claws in it’s wings. We’ve since discovered 24 species of feathered dinosaurs. The same prediction can be made wherever there is a terrestrial animal with less than five digits. The configuration of four limbs and five digits is so common it could not have happened independently in separate lineages so all the four-limbed, five-toed species had to have inherited the trait from the same lineage. So every time you see a species that lacks one of those traits you can predict earlier fossils that posessed it. Horses have four limbs but only one digit (a hoof is a single giant toenail), so we should find intermediates between them and five toed animals. And we do:

    The further back we go the more toes they have, counting up to five.

    Whales are mammals, not fish which means they too must have walked on all fours. Here are just some of the intermediate fossils we’ve found, and modern whales develop hind limbs in the womb which get absorbed into their bodies before birth, and some still retain absorbed hip and leg bones. And whales have a five digit bony hand in their fins.

    Tiktaalik is an apparent intermediate between fish and land animals, here are some of it’s interesting traits:

    Fish:

    fish gills
    fish scales
    fish fins

    “Fishapod”:

    half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
    half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

    Tetrapod:

    tetrapod rib bones
    tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle
    tetrapod lungs

    Etc, etc, etc. There are thousands upon thousands of transitional forms and more being discovered all the time. We’ve found pre-sonar bats and pre-shell turtles, turtles the size of a bus, shark’s teeth the size of a dinner plate and lots, lots more.

    Google “transitional fossils” for many more examples.

    Like

    1. [There is no such thing as a totally different family of creatures, all living things on earth share some traits in common with everything else…]

      If that’s what you think, you’re totally ignoring the obvious. The similarities you refer to do not speak of sameness or equality. Try electing a pig or horse or crab to be your representative at any government level. None of them can give birth to humans either and we don’t give birth to them. Anyone can use common sense to see your glaring error with that statement.

      You make a lot of assumptions about archeopteryx that were refuted years ago. Even evolutionists say archeopteryx was a bird– http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution

      Your arguments about four-limbed land animals, or tetrapods, has also been refuted in this article (which also refutes your whale evolution theory): http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-8-argument-the-fossil-record-supports-evolution

      Here’s a podcast & another article refuting your whale evolution theory:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v16/n1/chimeras

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-056/whale-evolution-another-fairy-tale

      Your argument about Tiktaalik also has huge holes in its theory. A closer look at your assumptions really don’t prove it is transitional. As a matter of fact, your assumptions are wrong, as this article points out:

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/tiktaalik_roseae_wheres_the_wr008921.html

      As I said before, evolutionists want so badly for their theories to be true that they will make up stories or carry out sleight of hand to make macroevolution look real. But at the end of the day, no transitional fossils really exist. It’s all a ruse made to sound scientific because evolutionists want to deny the sin-hating God that they know exists so they can attempt to dismiss the guilt for their sins. They don’t like the idea that they need to repent and turn away from their evil.

      Like

      1. You asked for one example of a fossil that has the traits of more than one modern group, I gave you many examples. You then just copied and pasted links to fundamentalist websites and ignored them like every other creationist I’ve ever talked to. Thanks for wasting my time.

        Like

      2. I actually asked for one valid transitional fossil. You gave me examples that have been shown to be invalid and don’t pass real scientific muster. The links I gave were from real scientific organizations that you only attack as fundamentalist because they don’t buy into the fairy tales that evolutionists are passing off as truth.

        Like

    1. Wrong again. The validity of an organization being scientific is not dependent on whether evolutionists like them, as you people assume. Answers in Genesis is staffed by scientists. So is Creation Ministries International. The problem with this back-and-forth is that evolutionists assume that facts are whatever THEY say are facts even if they lie.

      Like

      1. AiG doesn’t perform experiments or tests of any kind (also known as science) and is not a source of peer review. Your authors are not credentialed experts in the fields they are commenting on and their claims do not reflect the consensus of people who are, even if you just count the christian paleontologists, geneticists etc. How actual science works is a scientist finds something he can’t explain, forms a hypothesis, figures out what must be true and can’t be true if his hypothesis is true or false, then finds a way to test this by making predictions and testing those predictions. Then he submits his findings to a peer reviewed journal where other experts in his field criticize his methods and findings and if there are no obvious errors, publish his results so every other expert in his field can do the same and produce their own tests and predictions to further the investigation.

        AiG and creation.com are propaganda mills, they do not engage in any of the activities of science and simply evangelize and advocate a set of beliefs like political pundits, often using spin and deception and word games to do so just like political pundits do.

        Nowhere did I say “that’s not science because I don’t agree with it”. I explained why they are not valid sources in non-partisan language that was not charged or biased or loaded in any way. Can you respond in the same manner or are you just going to call me a leftist liar and ignore me again?

        Like

      2. Science is ‘ the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.’ So both orgs fall into the definition. As far as peer review is concerned, evolutionists systematically shut out creationists because they have an anti-God agenda. It’s so easy for evolutionists to say one has to be a peer reviewer to be valid scientifically & then turn around & keep specific people out who are valid scientists so they can attack them as unscientific. All because they don’t believe in Darwinism. That’s just dishonest.

        Like

  3. Please give me some examples of experiments produced by either organization. And the point was that these people are not even experts in the fields they are commenting on. A lawyer is not an expert in paleontology, nor is a chemist. This is not peer review, it’s an op-ed. And none of these articles have expert-level technical information, they are all written for consumption by non-experts like national geographic articles (national geographic is similarly not a peer reviewed or expert journal). As for the claim that dissent against evolution is censored, there are many countries (including the US) where christians are in the overwhelming majority. Do you expect me to believe they are silencing and persecuting themselves? Even if scientists were the moral equivalent of the mafia and were threatening to hurt peoples’ families if they disagreed with evolution (which is of course absurd) the mafia’s corruption was not a secret. Only creationists think this of the scientific community because only creationists have a reason to think it.

    Like

    1. Your attacks on valid organizations is typical because you feel threatened by the truths that expose your fairy tales for what they are. The information in the links I provided before gives both evolutionist and creationist sources to back their claims. Something you chose to overlook in your rush to dismiss true science to prop up your misconceptions.

      Here is a list of researchers and peer reviewers who have done work for AiG and links to their creds:

      Dr. Georgia Purdom, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp

      Dr. Margaret Helder, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1336.asp

      Dr. Paul Giem, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/paul-giem

      Dr. Duane Gish, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp

      An exhaustive list of more creationists/peer reviewers/researchers is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

      For Creation Ministries International, their scientists/peer reviewers/researchers with a list of their research can be found at:


      http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

      For the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science Culture, their scientists/peer reviewers/researchers include Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Casey Luskin, and others whose creds can be found at:

      http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

      Bottom line–your attacks are unfounded and unwarranted. Your comments are typical fodder for evolutionists who are so afraid of having their lies exposed so they do what they do best–lie some more to back up their other lies. You people lie about your research findings and you lie about those who expose your lies. You know God exists, you just use the denial of his existence to hide the fact you hate him and his message of repentance from your sin by faith to obtain righteousness.

      Like

  4. Lets back up – please give an example of experiments performed by AiG or creation.com which have the potential to test creationism (ie actual science being done) or expert-level technical articles describing experiments that are published on their websites for review by multiple PhD-level experts. …

    Like

    1. The links I gave give the publications of the scientists where they published the findings of their experiments. For instance, Dr. Stephen Meyer’s ‘Signature in the Cell.’ So you’ve just proven my point. It doesn’t matter how many sources that give concrete examples of their peer-reviewed research. Since they’re not blind enough to be Darwinists like you, you’re not going to accept them as valid. You have an agenda. It’s the ‘I hate God so everyone else has to hate him too’ agenda.

      Like

  5. This is f***ing mental… I literally can’t believe how someone can be this stupid. Get a grip christians.. You’re saying that we’re blindly neglecting OBVIOUS facts, but what does that make you. I’ve never seen a bigger disregard for stated facts. Give religion 2-3 more generations, and it’s whiped out. We don’t have time for this anymore.

    Like

    1. [I’ve never seen a bigger disregard for stated facts.]

      Just because an agnostic or atheist evolutionist makes statements does not make those statements facts. But such is the elitist hubris of people who can’t let go of evolution and their religion of atheism even when the proof that they are so wrong is presented.

      [Give religion 2-3 more generations, and it’s whiped out. We don’t have time for this anymore.]

      People have been reciting that nonsense for centuries. Yet we Christians are still here and the Bible is still here. Kings, Caesars, and other government leaders went to great lengths in the past to exterminate Christianity but they all failed. Such aspirations are really nothing but a pipe dream, Dennis. Maybe its time you turned away from your sins and turn to the only one who can save you from them–the Lord Jesus Christ. You claim that “we don’t have time for this anymore”, yet you have taken the time to leave a comment about it. Isn’t it because deep down you know your sins have left you empty inside? But you still want to cling to your sin anyway and are uncomfortable when someone confronts you about them, so you lash out. It’s really sad. You don’t have to continue down that path.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s